Amazon executives depose before parliament panel, quizzed about revenue & tax paid in India
New Delhi: Days after Amazon refused to appear before the parliamentary panel on the data protection bill, its top executives in India on Wednesday deposed before the committee and were questioned about the company's revenue model and how much tax it pays in the country.
The Joint Committee on Data Protection Bill, 2019 chaired by BJP MP Meenakshi Lekhi questioned Amazon India and Amazon Web Services representatives separately for nearly two hours each.
Amazon India was represented by its vice-presidents Chetan Krishnaswamy and Rakesh Bakshi while Amazon Web Services was represented by Head Public Policy India Yolynd Lobo, Lead Public Policy Uthara Ganesh, and others.
Members questioned the e-commerce major about its revenue model, how much revenue it generates, and what percent of it Amazon reinvests in India. The panel also asked questions about how much tax it pays in India, sources in the committee said.
The committee asked Amazon to give answers to these questions in writing, signed by its top-most officials.
A stringent notice was sent to Amazon by the parliament's committee on data protection bill after the company had last week said its representatives will not appear before it. In view of its non-appearance before the panel, a privilege motion was also under consideration.
The Personal Data Protection Bill, 2019 was introduced in the Lok Sabha by Minister of Electronics and Information Technology Ravi Shankar Prasad on December 11, 2019. The bill seeks to provide for the protection of personal data of individuals and establishes a Data Protection Authority for the same.
The Personal Data Protection Bill was later referred to a joint select committee of both Houses of Parliament. The proposed law seeks a bar on storing and processing of personal data by entities without the explicit consent of an individual.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Unemployed 'youngsters like cockroaches' become media, activists; attack system: CJI
New Delhi (PTI): Likening some unemployed youngsters to cockroaches, Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant on Friday said they go on to "become" media, social media and RTI activists and start attacking the system.
The comments came while a bench of CJI Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was pulling up a lawyer for "pursuing" a senior advocate designation. It said there were already "parasites" in society who attack the system and asked the petitioner whether he wanted to join hands with them.
"The entire world may be eligible to become senior (advocate), but at least you are not entitled," the bench told the petitioner lawyer.
A visibly anguished CJI observed that if the Delhi High Court would confer senior advocate designation upon the petitioner, the apex court would set that aside seeing his professional conduct.
The CJI also referred to the kind of language used by the petitioner on Facebook.
"There are already parasites of society who attack the system and you want to join hands with them?" he said.
"There are youngsters like cockroaches, who don't get any employment or have any place in profession. Some of them become media, some of them become social media, RTI activists and other activists and they start attacking everyone," he said.
The bench also asked the petitioner whether he did not have any other litigation.
"Is this the conduct of a person who seeks to be designated as a senior advocate?" the bench asked.
It said senior advocate designation is something that is conferred on a person and is not to be pursued.
"You are pursuing it. Does it look proper?" the top court said, asking whether a senior advocate designation was a status symbol to be kept ornamentally.
It also observed that it wanted to ask the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to verify the degrees of many of those who were wearing black robes as there were serious doubts over the genuineness of their degrees.
It said the Bar Council of India would never do anything on this issue as they "need their votes".
The petitioner apologised to the bench and sought permission to withdraw the petition. The bench allowed the withdrawal of the petition.
